Associations of geographic-based socioeconomic factors and HPV vaccination among male and female children in five US states.

BACKGROUND: We assessed whether five geographic-based socioeconomic factors (medically underserved area (MUA); healthcare provider shortage area (HPSA); persistent poverty; persistent child poverty; and social vulnerability index (SVI)) were associated with the odds of HPV vaccination initiation, series completion, and parental vaccine hesitancy, and whether the observed relationships varied by gender of the child. METHODS: An online panel service, administered through Qualtrics®, was used to recruit parents of adolescents 9-17 years of age to complete a one-time survey in 2021. Coverage of the panel included five US states: Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and Southern Illinois. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to assess population-level associations between five geographic-based socioeconomic factors (MUA; HPSA; persistent poverty; persistent child poverty; and SVI) and three HPV vaccination outcomes (initiation, series completion, and hesitancy). All GEE models were adjusted for age of child and clustering at the state level. RESULTS: Analyses were conducted using responses from 926 parents about their oldest child in the target age range (9-17 years). The analytic sample consisted of 471 male children and 438 female children across the five states. In adjusted GEE models, persistent child poverty and HPSA were negatively associated with HPV vaccination initiation and series completion among female children, respectively. Among male children, high social vulnerability was negatively associated with HPV vaccine series completion. Additionally, persistent poverty and high social vulnerability were negatively associated with HPV vaccine hesitancy in male children. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that geographic-based socioeconomic factors, particularly, HPSA, persistent poverty, and SVI, should be considered when implementing efforts to increase HPV vaccine coverage for adolescents. The approaches to targeting these geographic factors should also be evaluated in future studies to determine if they need to be tailored for male and female children.

The association of caregiver attitudes, information sources, and trust with HPV vaccine initiation among adolescents.

This study described caregiver attitudes and the information sources they access about HPV vaccination for adolescents and determined their influence on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination initiation. An online survey was administered to 1,016 adults in July 2021. Participants were eligible if they were the caregiver of a child aged 9-17 residing in Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, and select counties in Southern Illinois. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the association of caregiver attitudes and information sources with HPV vaccination. Information from doctors or healthcare providers (87.4%) and internet sources other than social media (31.0%) were the most used sources for HPV vaccine information. The highest proportion of caregivers trusted their doctor or healthcare providers (92.4%) and family or friends (68.5%) as sources of information. The HPV vaccine series was more likely to be initiated in children whose caregivers agreed that the vaccine is beneficial (AOR = 4.39, 95% CI = 2.05, 9.39), but less likely with caregivers who were concerned about side effects (AOR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.42, 0.88) and who received HPV vaccination information from family or friends (AOR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.35, 0.93). This study found that caregivers' attitudes, information sources, and trust in those sources were associated with their adolescent's HPV vaccination status. These findings highlight the need to address attitudes and information sources and suggest that tailored interventions considering these factors could increase HPV vaccination rates.

"We need a little strength as well": Examining the social context of informal caregivers for Black women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Informal caregivers (e.g., partners, other family members, friends) often provide social support to Black women with breast cancer, and caregivers find both benefits and challenges in their caregiving role. METHODS: In this qualitative study, twenty-four caregivers for Black women with breast cancer participated in focus groups and interviews. Participants responded to a brief close-ended questionnaire as well as semi-structured questions about their experiences as cancer caregivers. Demographic information was collected, and relationship satisfaction was measured by the Relationship Assessment Scale-General scale (RAS-G). Focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by two independent coders. Using an iterative, discussion-based process, the study team developed and refined themes. RESULTS: All caregivers described themselves as Black/African American, and the majority identified as female (79%). The mean RAS-G score was 4.5 (SD = 0.5), indicating high levels of relationship satisfaction. Qualitative themes included using a range of strategies to provide emotional support; shifting between roles; needing time and space; and trying to stay strong. Several female caregivers described how the cumulative experiences of providing care for multiple family members and friends could be draining, as could their own experiences in the patient role. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show a complex, multilayered social context that affects both the patient-caregiver relationship and the health and wellbeing of caregivers. Clinicians providing treatment and support for Black women with breast cancer should be mindful of how the health context of the family may affect patient and caregiver outcomes.

Understanding disruptions in cancer care to reduce increased cancer burden.

Background: This study seeks to understand how and for whom COVID-19 disrupted cancer care to understand the potential for cancer health disparities across the cancer prevention and control continuum. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, participants age 30+residing in an 82-county region in Missouri and Illinois completed an online survey from June-August 2020. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables separately and by care disruption status. Logistic regression modeling was conducted to determine the correlates of care disruption. Results: Participants (N=680) reported 21% to 57% of cancer screening or treatment appointments were canceled/postponed from March 2020 through the end of 2020. Approximately 34% of residents stated they would need to know if their doctor's office is taking the appropriate COVID-related safety precautions to return to care. Higher education (OR = 1.26, 95% CI:1.11-1.43), identifying as female (OR = 1.60, 95% CI:1.12-2.30), experiencing more discrimination in healthcare settings (OR = 1.40, 95% CI:1.13-1.72), and having scheduled a telehealth appointment (OR = 1.51, 95% CI:1.07-2.15) were associated with higher odds of care disruption. Factors associated with care disruption were not consistent across races. Higher odds of care disruption for White residents were associated with higher education, female identity, older age, and having scheduled a telehealth appointment, while higher odds of care disruption for Black residents were associated only with higher education. Conclusions: This study provides an understanding of the factors associated with cancer care disruption and what patients need to return to care. Results may inform outreach and engagement strategies to reduce delayed cancer screenings and encourage returning to cancer care. Funding: This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute's Administrative Supplements for P30 Cancer Center Support Grants (P30CA091842-18S2 and P30CA091842-19S4). Kia L. Davis, Lisa Klesges, Sarah Humble, and Bettina Drake were supported by the National Cancer Institute's P50CA244431 and Kia L. Davis was also supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Callie Walsh-Bailey was supported by NIMHD T37 MD014218. The content does not necessarily represent the official view of these funding agencies and is solely the responsibility of the authors.

Community Research Fellows Training Program: Evaluation of a COVID-19-Precipitated Virtual Adaptation.

Community engagement is important for promoting health equity. However, effective community engagement requires trust, collaboration, and the opportunity for all stakeholders to share in decision-making. Community-based training in public health research can build trust and increase community comfort with shared decision-making in academic and community partnerships. The Community Research Fellows Training (CRFT) Program is a community-based training program that promotes the role of underserved populations in research by enhancing participant knowledge and understanding of public health research and other relevant topics in health. This paper describes the process of modifying the original 15-week in-person training program to a 12-week online, virtual format to assure program continuation. In addition, we provide program evaluation data of the virtual training. Average post-test scores were higher than pre-test scores for every session, establishing the feasibility of virtual course delivery. While the knowledge gains observed were not as strong as those observed for the in-person training program, findings suggest the appropriateness of continuing to adapt CRFT for virtual formats.

Racial Variation in the Association Between Domains of Depressive Symptomatology and Functional Recovery in Stroke Survivors.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationships between various domains of depressive symptomatology and functional recovery in Black and White stroke survivors. METHODS: Black (n = 181) and White (n = 797) stroke survivors from the Stroke Recovery in Underserved Population database were included. Four domains of depressive symptomatology (depressed affect, positive affect, somatic symptoms, interpersonal difficulties) were measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale at discharge; functional recovery was measured by the Functional Independence Measure at discharge and 3-month follow-up. Multivariable linear regression analyses examined the relation between race and functional recovery, and the association between depressive symptomatology and functional recovery by race. RESULTS: Three-month functional recovery was greater among White stroke survivors than Black survivors. Affective symptoms of depression predicted poorer functional recovery of White survivors; whereas somatic symptoms predicted poorer functional recovery of Black survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Domains of depressive symptomatology were differentially associated with poorer functional recovery in Black and White stroke survivors. Psychosocial interventions aimed at alleviating depressive symptomatology have the potential to improve functional recovery in Black and White stroke survivors and should be addressed in planning rehabilitation post-stroke.

Quantifying inequities in COVID-19 vaccine distribution over time by social vulnerability, race and ethnicity, and location: A population-level analysis in St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri.

BACKGROUND: Equity in vaccination coverage is a cornerstone for a successful public health response to COVID-19. To deepen understanding of the extent to which vaccination coverage compares with initial strategies for equitable vaccination, we explore primary vaccine series and booster rollout over time and by race/ethnicity, social vulnerability, and geography. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We analyzed data from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services on all COVID-19 vaccinations administered across 7 counties in the St. Louis region and 4 counties in the Kansas City region. We compared rates of receiving the primary COVID-19 vaccine series and boosters relative to time, race/ethnicity, zip-code-level Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), vaccine location type, and COVID-19 disease burden. We adapted a well-established tool for measuring inequity-the Lorenz curve-to quantify inequities in COVID-19 vaccination relative to these key metrics. Between 15 December 2020 and 15 February 2022, 1,763,036 individuals completed the primary series and 872,324 received a booster. During early phases of the primary series rollout, Black and Hispanic individuals from high SVI zip codes were vaccinated at less than half the rate of White individuals from low SVI zip codes, but rates increased over time until they were higher than rates in White individuals after June 2021; Asian individuals maintained high levels of vaccination throughout. Increasing vaccination rates in Black and Hispanic communities corresponded with periods when more vaccinations were offered at small community-based sites such as pharmacies rather than larger health systems and mass vaccination sites. Using Lorenz curves, zip codes in the quartile with the lowest rates of primary series completion accounted for 19.3%, 18.1%, 10.8%, and 8.8% of vaccinations while representing 25% of the total population, cases, deaths, or population-level SVI, respectively. When tracking Gini coefficients, these disparities were greatest earlier during rollout, but improvements were slow and modest and vaccine disparities remained across all metrics even after 1 year. Patterns of disparities for boosters were similar but often of much greater magnitude during rollout in fall 2021. Study limitations include inherent limitations in the vaccine registry dataset such as missing and misclassified race/ethnicity and zip code variables and potential changes in zip code population sizes since census enumeration. CONCLUSIONS: Inequities in the initial COVID-19 vaccination and booster rollout in 2 large US metropolitan areas were apparent across racial/ethnic communities, across levels of social vulnerability, over time, and across types of vaccination administration sites. Disparities in receipt of the primary vaccine series attenuated over time during a period in which sites of vaccination administration diversified, but were recapitulated during booster rollout. These findings highlight how public health strategies from the outset must directly target these deeply embedded structural and systemic determinants of disparities and track equity metrics over time to avoid perpetuating inequities in healthcare access.

Construct validation of the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST).

BACKGROUND: The Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST) was developed to examine the level of partner (e.g., patients, caregivers, advocates, clinicians, community members) engagement in research studies. The REST is aligned with eight engagement principles based on the literature and consensus reached through a five round Delphi process. Each of the engagement principles has three-five corresponding items that are assessed on two Likert type scales quantity (how often: never, rarely, sometimes, often, always, not applicable) and quality (how well: poor, fair, good, very good, excellent, not applicable). We conducted a comprehensive validation of the REST. Despite the importance of partner engagement in research, currently no gold standard measure exists. METHODS: Multiple strategies were employed to validate the REST. Here, we examine the internal consistency of items for each of the eight engagement principles. In addition, we examine the convergent validity of the comprehensive (32-item) REST with other measures (e.g., medical mistrust, Community Engagement in Research Index, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool, Wilder collaboration inventory, Partnership Assessment In community-based Research). We propose two scoring approaches for the REST; one aligned with the engagement principles and the other aligned with levels of community engagement: (1) outreach and education, (2) consultation, (3) cooperation, (4) collaboration, and (5) partnership. RESULTS: The REST has strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.75) for each of the eight engagement principals measured on both scales (quality and quantity). The REST had negligible (e.g., medical mistrust, community engagement in research index), low (e.g., Partnership Assessment In community-based Research, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool- benefits scale), and moderate (e.g., Wilder collaboration inventory, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool- synergy scale) statistically significant correlations with other measures based on the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. These results suggest the REST is measuring something similar and correlated to the existing measures, but it captures a different construct (perceived research engagement). CONCLUSIONS: The REST is a valid and reliable tool to assess research engagement of community health stakeholders in the research process. Valid tools to assess research engagement are necessary to examine the impact of engagement on the scientific process and scientific discovery and move the field of stakeholder engagement from best practices and lessons learned to evidence-based approaches based on empirical data.

Researchers often conduct studies with partners (e.g., patients, caregivers, advocates, clinicians, community members) who also have an interest in the research topic. Depending on the research study the level of partner engagement in the research process may be high or low. Partners may be involved from the beginning including determining what topic to study and what questions the study should examine. They may suggest who should be included in the study, the geographic area of focus, and the outcome measures to be examined. In addition, they may help recruit study participants, interpret study results, and plan for how to share the results with those that need to know. No standard way exists to find out how involved a partner has been in a study from the partner's perspective. Here we develop and validate survey questions to measure the level of partner engagement in research studies. We looked at existing survey questions used to measure similar topics to make sure that a person who takes the survey gets consistent scores. We tested the survey with community health stakeholders (e.g., patients, caregivers, advocates, clinicians, community members) who are research partners for studies at universities across the United States. Over 2 years, the partners took different versions of the survey online four times. We used the data we collected from each survey to revise the questions and make sure that it measures partner involvement accurately and reliably. The Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST) has 32 questions to examine eight engagement principles on two scales: quantity (how much) and quality (how well). The REST is a valid and reliable tool to examine partner engagement in research.

Strategies to Achieve Breast Health Equity in the St. Louis Region and Beyond over 15+ Years.

Community-based participatory strategies are a promising approach to addressing disparities in community health outcomes. This paper details the efforts of Siteman Cancer Center to achieve breast health equity over the past 15+ years. We begin by describing the activities and successes arising from our breast health community partnerships including identifying priorities, developing recommendations, and implementing patient navigation services to advance breast health. This system-wide coordinated navigation approach that includes primary and specialty care providers helped to increase potential impact on reducing breast health disparities by expediting care, increasing care efficiency, and standardizing referral procedures across systems for all women including those who are uninsured and underinsured. We also discuss a mobile mammography unit that has been deployed to serve women living in both urban and rural regions. The van reached a particularly vulnerable population that was mostly poor, uninsured, and with limited educational backgrounds regardless of their zip code of service. This work shows that collaborations between academic and community partners have resulted in decreased late stage at diagnosis and improved access to mammography. Furthermore, we offer lessons learned and recommendations that may be applicable to other communities.

A Study Examining the Usefulness of a New Measure of Research Engagement.

INTRODUCTION: Engagement of relevant stakeholders' ideas, opinions, and concerns is critical to the success of modern research projects. We have developed a tool to measure stakeholder engagement, called the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST). The purpose of this paper is to present the implementation and uptake of the stakeholder engagement measure REST among research teams, including the assessment of barriers and facilitating factors for use of the new research engagement measure in practice. METHODS: In this implementation study, project team members participated in baseline and follow-up web-based surveys. Web-based interviews were conducted with a subset of project teams that implemented the REST. On the baseline survey, project teams were asked to provide details about up to three ongoing or recently completed projects, were asked if they agreed with compensation for REST completion, and were asked if they would like to send the survey to stakeholders or would prefer our project team to email their project stakeholders. Follow-up surveys contained questions on reactions to implementing REST and results of REST. RESULTS: Project team members/researchers who completed the baseline survey (n=86) were mostly female (79%) and Non-Hispanic/Latino(a) White (76%). Those who implemented REST were also mostly female (86%) and Non-Hispanic/Latino(a) White (71%), with an average of 11 years in academic research. About 98% of all participants completing the baseline survey had the capacity to survey partners, while 100% of all teams who implemented REST did. A small portion of respondents indicated the time commitment of REST would be a barrier (29% of baseline survey respondents, 10% of those who implemented REST) and indicated workload would be a barrier (31% of baseline survey respondents, 14% of those who implemented REST). DISCUSSION: The data presented here indicate that REST implementation is feasible in a volunteer group of ongoing research projects.

Development and Validation of a Brief Version of the Research Engagement Survey Tool.

The Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST) examines the level of partner engagement in research studies. This study used mixed methods, including web-based surveys (N = 336), a modified Delphi process (N = 18), and cognitive response interviews (N = 16), with convenience sampling to develop and validate a short version of the REST. We conducted factor analysis and calculated internal consistency for the condensed REST. We validated the condensed REST against the comprehensive REST. All analyses were carried out on two scales (quality and quantity) based on Likert-type response options. We examined convergent validity with other measures theoretically associated with the REST (e.g., the Community Engagement Research Index and the Partnership Self-Assessment Tool). This study produced a 9-item condensed version of the REST. The condensed REST loads on 1 factor, has high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92 for the quantity scale; 0.94 for the quality scale), is significantly correlated (ρ = 0.97; p < 0.001 for both scales) with the comprehensive (32-item) REST, and has negligible, low, and moderate correlation with other measures (e.g., the Partnership Assessment In community-based Research, trust in medical researchers, and the Coalition Self-Assessment Survey). Use of the condensed REST will reduce participant burden and time to complete. This standardized and validated quantitative measure is useful to compare engagement across projects or within a project over time.

Preferences for COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies in the US: A discrete choice survey.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the US has been immensely successful in vaccinating those who are receptive, further increases in vaccination rates however will require more innovative approaches to reach those who remain hesitant. Developing vaccination strategies that are modelled on what people want could further increase uptake. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To inform COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies that are aligned with public preferences we conducted a discrete choice experiment among the US public (N = 2,895) between March 15 to March 22, 2021. We applied sampling weights, evaluated mean preferences using mixed logit models, and identified latent class preference subgroups. On average, the public prioritized ease, preferring single to two dose vaccinations (mean preference: -0.29; 95%CI: -0.37 to -0.20), vaccinating once rather than annually (mean preference: -0.79; 95%CI: -0.89 to -0.70) and reducing waiting times at vaccination sites. Vaccine enforcement reduced overall vaccine acceptance (mean preference -0.20; 95%CI: -0.30 to -0.10), with a trend of increasing resistance to enforcement with increasing vaccine hesitancy. Latent class analysis identified four distinct preference phenotypes: the first prioritized inherent "vaccine features" (46.1%), the second were concerned about vaccine "service delivery" (8.8%), a third group desired "social proof" of vaccine safety and were susceptible to enforcement (13.2%), and the fourth group were "indifferent" to vaccine and service delivery features and resisted enforcement (31.9%). CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies several critical insights for the COVID-19 public health response. First, identifying preference segments is essential to ensure that vaccination services meet the needs of diverse population subgroups. Second, making vaccination easy and promoting autonomy by simplifying services and offering the public choices (where feasible) may increase uptake in those who remain deliberative. And, third vaccine mandates have the potential to increase vaccination rates in susceptible groups but may simultaneously promote control aversion and resistance in those who are most hesitant.

Public Preferences for Social Distancing Policy Measures to Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 in Missouri.

Importance: Policies to promote social distancing can minimize COVID-19 transmission but come with substantial social and economic costs. Quantifying relative preferences among the public for such practices can inform locally relevant policy prioritization and optimize uptake. Objective: To evaluate relative utilities (ie, preferences) for COVID-19 pandemic social distancing strategies against the hypothetical risk of acquiring COVID-19 and anticipated income loss. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study recruited individuals living in the Missouri area from May to June 2020 via randomly distributed unincentivized social media advertisements and local recruitment platforms for members of minority racial and ethnic groups. Participants answered 6 questions that asked them to choose between 2 hypothetical counties where business closures, social distancing policy duration, COVID-19 infection risk, and income loss varied. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reweighted population-level relative preferences (utilities) for social distancing policies, subgroups, and latent classes. Results: The survey had a 3% response rate (3045 of 90 320). Of the 2428 respondents who completed the survey, 1669 (75%) were 35 years and older, 1536 (69%) were women, and 1973 (89%) were White. After reweighting to match Missouri population demographic characteristics, the strongest preference was for the prohibition of large gatherings (mean preference, -1.43; 95% CI, -1.67 to -1.18), with relative indifference to the closure of social and lifestyle venues (mean preference, 0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.17). There were weak preferences to keep outdoor venues (mean preference, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.61) and schools (mean preference, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.30) open. Latent class analysis revealed 4 distinct preference phenotypes in the population: risk averse (48.9%), conflicted (22.5%), prosocial (14.9%), and back to normal (13.7%), with men twice as likely as women to belong to the back to normal group than the risk averse group (relative risk ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.54 to 3.12). Conclusions And relevance: In this survey study using a discrete choice experiment, public health policies that prohibited large gatherings, as well as those that closed social and lifestyle venues, appeared to be acceptable to the public. During policy implementation, these activities should be prioritized for first-phase closures. These findings suggest that policy messages that address preference heterogeneity (eg, focusing on specific preference subgroups or targeting men) could improve adherence to social distancing measures for COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Effect of Race and Ethnicity on In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with COVID-19.

Objective: To identify differences in short-term outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) according to various racial/ethnic groups. Design: Analysis of Cerner de-identified COVID-19 dataset. Setting: A total of 62 health care facilities. Participants: The cohort included 49,277 adult COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized from December 1, 2019 to November 13, 2020. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was non-routine discharge (discharge to destinations other than home, such as short-term hospitals or other facilities including intermediate care and skilled nursing homes). Methods: We compared patients' age, gender, individual components of Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidities, medical complications, use of do-not-resuscitate, use of palliative care, and socioeconomic status between various racial and/or ethnic groups. We further compared the rates of in-hospital mortality and non-routine discharges between various racial and/or ethnic groups. Results: Compared with White patients, in-hospital mortality was significantly higher among African American (OR 1.5; 95%CI:1.3-1.6, P<.001), Hispanic (OR1.4; 95%CI:1.3-1.6, P<.001), and Asian or Pacific Islander (OR 1.5; 95%CI: 1.1-1.9, P=.002) patients after adjustment for age and gender, Elixhauser comorbidities, do-not-resuscitate status, palliative care use, and socioeconomic status. Conclusions: Our study found that, among hospitalized patients with COVID-2019, African American, Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander patients had increased mortality compared with White patients after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and do-not-resuscitate/palliative care status. Our findings add additional perspective to other recent studies.

Strategies of community engagement in research: definitions and classifications.

Engagement activities are defined along a continuum that analyzes and represents nonacademic stakeholder activities and interactions with academic researchers. Proposed continua begin with none to limited stakeholder inclusion and input into research and continue with descriptions of increasing presence, input, and participation in decision-making. Despite some agreement in the literature, development of consistent terminology and definitions has been recommended to promote the common understanding of strategies in engaged research. This paper sought to develop and understand classifications and definitions of community-engaged research that can serve as the foundation of a measure of engaged research that permits comparisons among engagement strategies and the outcomes that they produce in health- and healthcare-related research studies. Data on academic and stakeholder perceptions and understandings of classifications and definitions were obtained using Delphi process (N = 19) via online and face-to-face survey and cognitive response interviews (N = 16). Participants suggested the need for more nuanced understanding of engagement along portions of the continuum, with active involvement and decision-making as engagement progressed. Cognitive interview responses suggested that outreach and education is a more advanced level of engagement than previously discussed in the literature and viewed consultation negatively because it required work without guaranteeing community benefit. It is possible to define a continuum of patient- and community-engaged research that is understood and accepted by both academic researchers and community members. However, future research should revisit the understanding and depiction of the strategies that are to be used in measure development.

Understanding Drivers of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Racial Disparities: A Population-Level Analysis of COVID-19 Testing Among Black and White Populations.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing-the pandemic's most critical but limited resource-may be an important but modifiable driver of COVID-19 inequities. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Missouri State Department of Health and Senior Services on all COVID-19 tests conducted in the St Louis and Kansas City regions. We adapted a well-established tool for measuring inequity-the Lorenz curve-to compare COVID-19 testing rates per diagnosed case among Black and White populations. RESULTS: Between 14/3/2020 and 15/9/2020, 606 725 and 328 204 COVID-19 tests were conducted in the St Louis and Kansas City regions, respectively. Over time, Black individuals consistently had approximately half the rate of testing per case than White individuals. In the early period (14/3/2020 to 15/6/2020), zip codes in the lowest quartile of testing rates accounted for only 12.1% and 8.8% of all tests in the St Louis and Kansas City regions, respectively, even though they accounted for 25% of all cases in each region. These zip codes had higher proportions of residents who were Black, without insurance, and with lower median incomes. These disparities were reduced but still persisted during later phases of the pandemic (16/6/2020 to 15/9/2020). Last, even within the same zip code, Black residents had lower rates of tests per case than White residents. CONCLUSIONS: Black populations had consistently lower COVID-19 testing rates per diagnosed case than White populations in 2 Missouri regions. Public health strategies should proactively focus on addressing equity gaps in COVID-19 testing to improve equity of the overall response.

Community partners' responses to items assessing stakeholder engagement: Cognitive response testing in measure development.

BACKGROUND: Despite recognition of the importance of stakeholder input into research, there is a lack of validated measures to assess how well constituencies are engaged and their input integrated into research design. Measurement theory suggests that a community engagement measure should use clear and simple language and capture important components of underlying constructs, resulting in a valid measure that is accessible to a broad audience. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate how community members understood and responded to a measure of community engagement developed to be reliable, valid, easily administered, and broadly usable. METHOD: Cognitive response interviews were completed, during which participants described their reactions to items and how they processed them. Participants were asked to interpret item meaning, paraphrase items, and identify difficult or problematic terms and phrases, as well as provide any concerns with response options while responding to 16 of 32 survey items. RESULTS: The results of the cognitive response interviews of participants (N = 16) suggest concerns about plain language and literacy, clarity of question focus, and the lack of context clues to facilitate processing in response to items querying research experience. Minimal concerns were related to response options. Participants suggested changes in words and terms, as well as item structure. CONCLUSION: Qualitative research can improve the validity and accessibility of measures that assess stakeholder experience of community-engaged research. The findings suggest wording and sentence structure changes that improve ability to assess implementation of community engagement and its impact on research outcomes.

Reaching Consensus on Principles of Stakeholder Engagement in Research.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder-engaged research is an umbrella term for the types of research that have community, patient, and/or stakeholder engagement, feedback, and bidirectional communication as approaches used in the research process. The level of stakeholder engagement across studies can vary greatly, from minimal engagement to fully collaborative partnerships. OBJECTIVES: To present the process of reaching consensus among stakeholder and academic experts on the stakeholder engagement principles (EPs) and to identify definitions for each principle. METHODS: We convened 19 national experts, 18 of whom remained engaged in a five-round Delphi process. The Delphi panel consisted of a broad range of stakeholders (e.g., patients, caregivers, advocacy groups, clinicians, researchers). We used web-based surveys for most rounds (1-3 and 5) and an in-person meeting for round 4. Panelists evaluated EP titles and definitions with a goal of reaching consensus (>80% agreement). Panelists' comments guided modifications, with greater weight given to non-academic stakeholder input. CONCLUSIONS: EP titles and definitions were modified over five Delphi rounds. The panel reached consensus on eight EPs (dropping four, modifying four, and adding one) and corresponding definitions. The Delphi process allowed for a stakeholder-engaged approach to methodological research. Stakeholder engagement in research is time consuming and requires greater effort but may yield a better, more relevant outcome than more traditional scientist-only processes. This stakeholder-engaged process of reaching consensus on EPs and definitions provides a key initial step for the content validation of a survey tool to examine the level of stakeholder engagement in research studies.

Content validation of a quantitative stakeholder engagement measure.

AIM: Using a stakeholder-engaged approach, this study conducted content validation and item reduction of a quantitative measure of research engagement. METHODS: A five-round modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus on items. Rounds 1-3 and 5 were conducted using web-based surveys. Round 4 consisted of a 2-day, in-person meeting. Delphi panelists received individualized reports outlining individual and aggregate group responses after rounds 1-3. RESULTS: Over the five-round process, items were added, dropped, modified, and moved from one engagement principle to another. The number of items was reduced from 48 to 32, with three to five items corresponding to eight engagement principles. CONCLUSIONS: Research that develops standardized, reliable, and accurate measures to assess stakeholder engagement is essential to understanding the impact of engagement on scientific discovery and the scientific process. Valid quantitative measures to assess stakeholder engagement in research are necessary to assess associations between engagement and research outcomes.

Adaptation, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Public Health Research Methods Training for Youth.

Purpose: To adapt, implement, and evaluate a public health research methods training program for youth. The Community Research Fellows Training Program is an evidence-based public health research methods training program for adults (18 years and older). The Youth Research Fellows Training (YRFT) is an adaptation of this program for youth. Methods: University faculty facilitate didactic training sessions and experiential small group activities in biweekly sessions conducted as part of an existing 4-week summer camp. Participants were African American girls (n=11) ranging from ages 10 to 14 years (most recent grade completed 4th-8th). To evaluate participant knowledge gain and satisfaction pre-tests were administered before each session, and post-test and evaluations were administered after each session. In addition, faculty completed web-based evaluation surveys on their experience teaching in the program. Results: Mean and median post-test scores were higher than pre-test scores for most (6 of the 7) of the training sessions; one session had no difference in scores. Participants rated the sessions well, on average overall session ratings of 4.3-4.8 on a 5-point Likert scale. Faculty rated their experience teaching in the program as excellent or very good and would be willing to teach in the program again (n=7; 100%). Conclusion: This pilot implementation of the YRFT program proved highly successful in terms of participant and faculty experience. The program evaluation demonstrates increased knowledge of public health research methods. This program has the potential to prepare youth to engage in public health research as partners not just participants.